Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Archive
Archives (Index)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.
About archives
Shortcuts:
WT:CSD
WT:SPEEDY

[edit] Read this before proposing new criteria

Contributors frequently propose new criteria for speedy deletion. If you have a proposal to offer, please keep a few guidelines in mind:

  1. The criterion should be objective: an article that a reasonable person judges as fitting or not fitting the criterion should be similarly judged by other reasonable people. Often this requires making the rule very specific. An example of an unacceptably subjective criterion might be "an article about something unimportant."
  2. The criterion should be uncontestable: it should be the case that almost all articles that can be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to general consensus. If a rule paves the path for deletions that will cause controversy, it probably needs to be restricted. In particular, don't propose a CSD in order to overrule keep votes that might otherwise occur in AfD. Don't forget that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect if not carefully worded.
  3. The criterion should arise frequently: speedy deletion was created as a means of decreasing load on other deletion methods such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. But these other methods are often more effective because they treat articles on a case-by-case basis and incorporate many viewpoints; CSD exchanges these advantages for the practical goal of expeditious, lightweight cleanup. If a situation arises rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and more fair to delete it via one of these other methods instead. This also keeps CSD as simple and easy to remember as possible.
  4. The criterion should be nonredundant: if the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that. If this application of that rule is contested, consider discussing and/or clarifying it. Only if a new rule covers articles that cannot be speedy deleted otherwise should it be considered.

If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page.

Oft referenced pages

Contents


[edit] Notable music by not notable musicians?

Question. When there's an article created about Artist X, a completely unknown 14 year old rapper from Denmark, it gets a {{db-band}} tag and will be speedy deleted within minutes. But when Artist X (or his friend) creates an article about his upcoming, not even recorded let alone released, debut album, there's no speedy tag to deal with it.

The {{db-band}} tag specifically says it doesn't apply to albums, WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't do speedies, and the article isn't really spam either. Yet we're dealing with an unreleased album ("will probably be recorded in spring 2009") by a musician that is considered to be not notable and/or insignificant.

I come across these kind of 'releases' quite regularly and I simply don't know how to tag them. Should {{db-band}} perhaps be extended to include unreleased albums? Can a 'not notable' musician make 'notable' music? Or am I completely missing an obvious solution to this tagging problem?

Update: In the archives of this page I just read about a similar problem, but that's more a discussion about existing albums and songs. I'm talking about unreleased stuff by 'not-notables'. Albums by Artist X above, films by his friend Director X (a teenager in Canada), etcetera.  Channel ®   23:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there really that many articles being created about nonexistent albums, as opposed to ones that do exist and are available on MySpace, for it to make a difference? If so, I suppose we could consider something like "A(n+1): Speculative articles on future events or things that don't exist yet, where there is no evidence of independent sources covering the speculation." Note that I've deliberately avoided using A7's "assertion of importance or significance", since most such articles that I've seen have asserted that the soon-to-be-released things shall be the best ever, or something similar. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We just use WP:PROD for those. While such articles should probably almost always be deleted, I'm not sure it's a big enough problem to warrant a new speedy. Do we have some stats on how often these occur? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Karonen's description "Speculative articles on future events" sums my problem up quite nicely. Using a PROD is a solution but these tags usually get deleted (of course). I can't give stats but I've seen plenty of articles about upcoming albums, films, books and art, all by complete unknowns. I'm not suggesting to introduce a new speedy for this (although it would help a lot), because that would most probably clash with WP:CRYSTALBALL. But why not extend {{db-band}} and {{db-person}} to include the 'not notables' output as well?  Channel ®   08:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm conflicted about extending {{db-band}} to apply to albums, which stems from some of my feelings about {{db-band}} itself. {{db-band}} is really valuable for articles like "Ant Vomit is a band formed by four friends who recorded a demo in their garage and are looking for a big record deal." I strongly support extending {{db-band}} to their demo, as well.
But a lot of band and album articles are written by fans who are new to wikipedia and don't know how to show notability in the first edit or two. It takes (well, me, at least) more than 15 seconds to determine whether there's a whiff of notability for most bands, especially because there's no clear cut list (or even definition) of what makes a notable label. If the band article was speedied, that doesn't always mean the band isn't notable, it just means that notability wasn't blindingly obvious. So I'm equally uncomfortable speedying that band's albums.
It's a problem I'm not sure how to resolve. I'm uncomfortable speedying potentially good articles, but I don't want to see another 50 articles a day in AfD. Anyone have a magic wand?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean but I prefer to stay away from possible definitions of notability for now. That's beyond my question and it makes this discussion VERY wide. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the lack of notability is established and that the {{db-band}} is rightfully applied. I am talking about your friends Ant Vomit (great name, by the way) and their demo. I can speedy Ant Vomit but I can't speedy their demo (or video, home-movie, CD-R). That doesn't add up, I think  Channel ®   15:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like we're in agreement. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure how you'd write something that'd apply to them. And I still wonder if there are all that many of these floating about. It doesn't seem like something that happens too terribly often, so it wouldn't take a large load off of PROD and AfD to write a CSD about it (or modify one of the CSD or whatever). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I am opposed to adding content including albums to A7, and opposed to making WP:CRYSTAL part of the CSD in any shape or form. Dsmdgold (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Easy enough rationale here. If an article is created about a product, does not assert why the product is notable or important, and is not written encyclopedically, the only possibility really left is that it is directly or indirectly intended to promote that product. And promotion is speedy-eligible. If no one wants to do it under A7, use G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Bon appétit... — CharlotteWebb 02:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
While a common misconception, "Please do not bite the newcomers" translates to "Please correct the newcomers as gently as possible", not "Please do not correct the newcomers" or "Please do not utilize quality control". Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Careful with That Razor, Occam. Yes, quality control is good, but you have just suggested that the author's motive defaults directly or indirectly to self-promotion if two subjective and arbitrarily chosen quality standards are not initially met. What category of gentle treatment does that fall into? If an article is neutral and verifiable, there is no prima facie evidence of promotional intent and it should certainly not be eligible for speedy deletion (regardless of whether you consider it notable or encyclopedic). — CharlotteWebb 16:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That's kinda' a stretch of logic, and I'm not sure everyone would agree with you. It's probably not hurting anyone to have it up for five days or a week (unless it's an attack, but those are speedy-able anyway). So people can, and probably should, just use PROD and AfD to deal with them. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deleted user:Daynal

Now that the indefblocked user:Daynal page has been deleted, what becomes of this user talkpage and how will the talkpage be linked or not to any new user Daynal? --72.250.232.242 (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Typically the user remains in the user so there will never be another user by that name. Typically, users don't go around creating user pages that aren't theres, but if there is a concern, the page can be deleted and protected against re-creation. The same thing can be done with the user_talk: page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply! Did you intend to say "the user(talk) remains in the user(page) so there will never be another user by that name"? This page was created to guard it against usage by others that may misrepresent the meaning and/or value of the name, so it was used to keep others from doing so. When a second article was written by the user Daynal about an author published by Daynal Institute Press, concerns were raised that were then addressed in consultation with two other editors where agreement was made to retain the user name for the sole purpose that it be indefinitely blocked as one of the editors said he did not know if it could be otherwise. Afterwards, user Daynal, opened a new account using his personal name to implement the editorial suggestions of one of the editors for an article thinking such would be preferable to anonymous edits. However, this prompted the accusation (quickly sustained) of Sockpuppetry from a third editor that has now blocked indefinitely both usernames from further edits. Needless to say, he is no longer interested in contributing to Wikipedia, but others who share his concern for the name Daynal would like to know what Wikipedia will do now.

Gratefully,

--75.105.7.0 (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Db-i7 versus Template:Dfu?

I'm a bit confused about the usage of the templates {{Db-i7}} (alias {{Db-badfairuse}}) and {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} (alias "{{subst:dfu}}"). Both are based on the same policy (WP:CSD I7 + WP:NFCC), but create effectively different processes.

  • One reasonable way of distinguishing these might be that Db-disputed fair use should be for cases where the problem may potentially be remedied by rewording the FUR (as in most cases where it's used by bots these days), while the other one could be for cases where there is an objective problem of invalid fair use and even an improved rationale wouldn't help. Is that the reason for having the two? Or is that distinction impractical?
  • {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} has a dated category mechanism placing images in a deletion queue by day. It's timed to 7 days, although according to policy most images should only have 48 h. {{Db-i7}} mentions 48h, but lacks the category mechanism, which makes its use unwieldy. I understand that bot-generated routine taggings should generally stick to 7 days, but I don't like unnecessarily long waiting periods for those that I tag manually and where I really mean deletion.

So, what should be done?

  • Merge both templates?
  • Add a "|concern=" parameter to Db-i7?
  • Add a timed deletion queue mechanism to Db-i7?
  • Add another parameter to {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} that switches between 48h and 7d queueing?
  • Make Db-i7 a clone of Di-disputed fair use rationale, only with a fixed 48h- rather than 7d-period?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding a "|concern=" parameter to {{db-i7}} personally, assuming it's not to difficult. It looks like {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} is a bit outdated, since {{db-i7}} only allows 7 days for images from June 13, 2006 and earlier or articles tagged with {{Replaceable fair use}} (alias {{subst:rfu}}). Perhaps just making {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} a clone of {{db-i7}} would do the same, along with the single fix to {{db-i7}}. But I'm not familiar with how these templates are used, so I could be completely off my mark, I'm just saying what I think would be easiest. I've also put a note on Template talk:Di-disputed fair use rationale about possibly automatically dating instead of requiting the "|date=" parameter. Cheers.

[edit] Clarify G6

Per this discussion at the Village Pump, I'd like to propose the following clarification be amended to criterion G6:

This criterion covers only purely technical uses of the deletion feature, and should not be applied to cases where any actual original content is permanently deleted.

Does anyone object? Improvements to the wording are welcome, of course. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't object with the intent, as that is how I believe G6 is supposed to work. I think adding it as a footnote should do the trick without clutting up the actual text too much. Sort of a little reminder that actually deleting things isn't what G6 is for. The wording you propose is pretty good, and I certainly can't come up with anything better. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
From one that I just saw, It definitely needs some clarification as and maybe even a new title. 'Housekeeping' and 'maintenance' are terms too close to the general idea of an admin as 'janitor'. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I used to deleted unused templates under G6; it was always kind of nice (in my mind) to have a generic housekeeping criterion... --MZMcBride (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
We have T3 for that now; even so, mostly find it stuck on template redirects, which don't seem to be what it's there for. —Cryptic 19:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No we don't, I had this argument with MZ at the time. T3 is for templates that are unused and ... ; they have to also satisfy one of the other criteria. Happy‑melon 14:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes please. I actually think we should go a step further, and eliminate G6 entirely and enumerate its legitimate uses. Of the articles I've found tagged {{db-g6}} by non-admins, there's been a bare handful of correct ones (mostly history merges and deletion-of-a-redirect for page moves, which I now see you mentioned in the linked discussion) and many, many more that can be characterized as "I couldn't find a real reason to speedy this but I can't be bothered to take it to XfD where it belongs". —Cryptic 19:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at some of the places where I've used G6 in the last 8 months:
  1. [1] Jumping the gun on a {{db-catempty}}
  2. [2] Someone created a talk page, then put the same request on the page, so I was cleaning up.
  3. [3] (and talk) a page had been deleted at user request, restored temporarilly for another user, and then I deleted for the user who had requested the temporary restore even though it was outside their own userspace
  4. a case where the same editor has put identical content on two main space pages, I've deleted one and made a disambiguation page at the other
  5. [4] author of a page acknowledged that it was original research and didn't belong, but I felt it didn't quite meet the single contributor test
  6. [5] someone posted a talk page message intended for a user at the page of a non-existant user (capitalization error)
  7. [6] An article was dual posted to the article page and the talk page
  8. As part of history merging
  9. [7] Someone creating their userpage in the main article space, and had already realized the mistake and created again at their userpage, but hadn't blanked or tagged the mainspace page for deletion
  10. [8] Article space page was an attempted redirect to a user talk page in the German wikipedia
I've also used it in cases where I could have cited vandalism, but the cases I cite above all are non-controversial housekeeping. This list demonstrates that we can't possibly enumerate all the silly and obvious cleanup issues that will be needed. GRBerry 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with GRB, and I think we could help this by clearly enumerating things it could not be used for--at the least, let us say that it should not be used when another category is appropriate. We could specifically say, that anyone asking in good faith could get a G6 restored on request, by any admin without need to consult the deleting admin, since it can only be used for uncontroversial housekeeping. DGG (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still unconvinced. I'm not saying those deletions were wrong, or even that they should have been under other criteria (though I must admit puzzlement that you thought this prevented a g7); administrators made similar IARish speedies before G6 and would continue to do so if we removed the criterion from WP:CSD. What I'm saying is that having something so broadly and poorly-defined listed here—and especially having a template like {{db-g6}}—isn't doing any favors to non-administrators. —Cryptic 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Got a more concise way of saying it, finally. Just change housekeeping to technical deletions. That should work, right? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a little clearer. DGG (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If no one objects I'll change it in a few days. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] U1 and user talk pages

I've always considered user talk pages to be U1-ineligible (i.e. admins don't delete user talk pages at the request of the user in question), but I've lately seen a few deleted under U1. Am I mistaken? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I at least always decline these, as well as user talk archives that were created via page-move rather than copy-paste. —Cryptic 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the only good answer is "it depends". As long as there are no warnings in the history to worry about, I assume good faith and honor the request. If a user in good-standing is retiring from the project, he/she has a right to vanish and that would imply that the talk page should be taken down, too. Likewise, if a user has made a sincere effort to turn over a new leaf, we do allow a purge and fresh start. (But the threshold for demonstrating that "sincere effort" is often quite high.) A deletion may be in order if the Talk page had BLP-violation content (such as the birthdate and real-world contact information of a user who is a minor) as the only way to protect the disclosed information. On the other hand, if the content of the talk page is a long list of vandalism warnings, then I am not inclined to believe that the user request was being made in good-faith and will decline the speedy-request. Ultimately, it's a judgment call on the part of the admin evaluating the page. Rossami (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Template:Db-u1 used to require a rationale before it would categorize a user talk page into CAT:CSD. The parameter was intended to have people justify why their user talk page should be deleted. At some point, the CSD templates were standardized, and the users who did the code updates broke the rationale code and haven't yet fixed it. Grr.... --MZMcBride (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually MZ, we made a conscious decision not to fix it. When we standardised the templates, it dumped about 400 User talk: pages into CAT:CSD, some of which had been tagged for months or even years. Far from encouraging users to provide a rationale, users were just adding the template as normal, not noticing that it was not categorising properly, and then forgetting them and leaving the requests to rot. Happy‑melon 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Um... good. The guidelines say that User_talk pages should only be deleted in extraordinary cases, something that it would seem more and more admins keep forgetting. If users can't read the large red font that explained the rationale parameter, then they probably didn't need their user talk page deleted after all. I've handled a fair bit of U1 requests for User_talk pages – they're generally accompanied by requests that we delete the user's account as well. Having the pages tagged and forgotten is better than having them deleted. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
m:Right to vanish supersedes any guideline on the subject. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
A Meta essay trumps a local guideline? And you assume that everyone who wishes for their talk page to be deleted is exercising their right to vanish. Some are simply embarrassed by past indiscretions. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe it's an essay. We also have the privacy policy to consider as well (for those actually using it to remove personal information). At any rate, unless someone is obviously abusing it (having their user talk page deleted, then coming back days (or even a week or two) later, without requesting undeletion), I don't see the harm. Perhaps a better way to handle user talk page deletions would be to codify somewhere that if the user returns they should request undeletion of said page (or, if an admin notices the user has returned, may undelete it). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the Meta page trumps the Wikipedia page. (Meta does not make the arbitrary distinctions between "policy", "guideline" and "essay" that we do here on Wikipedia so it can take some digging to know which pages are treated as binding and which as commentary. That one's binding.) No, we are not assuming that everyone who asks to have their talk page deleted is exercising that right, merely acknowledging that unless you have reason to believe otherwise we must assume good faith and honor the request.
To Locke Cole's suggestion, I would recommend against codifying the standards. Leaving the issue to the informed judgment of the administrator who can evaluate the specifics of the request and of the user's contribution history is a better answer in most cases. Rossami (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) That seems pretty ridiculous to me. Of course Meta makes the distinction. meta:Don't be a dick is a essay. There's a giant box at the top indicating so in several languages. Meanwhile, meta:Policy lists different types of policies while meta:Meta:Index/Policies and guidelines lists the specific ones. But, of course, all of this is getting off track. The point of the rationale parameter was to have users explain why they wanted their user talk pages deleted, so admins could do less guessing and be more sure. There doesn't seem to be any harm in requiring people to justify their reason for wanting their User_talk page deleted, though, perhaps, it could be more obvious that the rationale parameter is what is required. I'll fix the code to not show a box at all if Template:Db-u1 is used on a User_talk: page. Does that sound like a decent compromise? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the warning for a lack of rationale, but it should still be categorized correctly regardless. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Your changes look good, MZMcBride. I just tested on my user and user talk pages, and it works fine. I'd guess that solves everyone's problems with this, mostly. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I should have said that Meta is not as compulsive about tagging or as formalized in the distinctions. Nevertheless, the point is that users have right to vanish (foundation level and derivative of the privacy policy) and we are expected to assume good faith (guideline level). The wording at WP:USER (also guideline level) says "user talk pages are generally not deleted" but then goes on to list some significant qualifiers. When considered in context, we can not and should not require a user to divulge a rationale unless we have reason to suspect bad faith in the request. It's okay to ask for a rationale but the refusal to provide one in a request that otherwise appears to be a good faith request is not a sufficient reason to refuse the user's request. Rossami (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Swatjester that user talk pages, as distinct from user pages, may not be deleted under this rule. They can always go to MfD and ask for expedited attention--things can move fast enough there. If it is really too urgent for that, it should probably me a matter of oversight and office. Most admins usually have good informed judgment, but I would not base any rules on the assumption that every one of us always does. DGG (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's the process for a part-copy article?

A new article, The beirut has been created. It's in Italian, which I would suspect would qualify the page under CSD G1. The first section of the body text however is a direct copy of the band's section on this page. WHat's the best way to proceed in this case? Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 10:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was all cut and pasted from [9]; I've deleted it per G12. But the general procedure for partial copyvios is to simply blank the copied part, citing the source in the edit summary. If what's left doesn't constitute a viable article anymore, it may then be nominated for deletion. (Consider using PROD for this.) Of course, if all that would be left after removing the copyvio would be speediable under criterion A3 (or G1-3), it can probably be ignored entirely and the entire article considered to be substantially a copyright violation. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the response, it's much appreciated. Gazimoff WriteRead 10:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, for the record, being foreign language in and of itself does not make an article qualify for any of the CSD. Usually when you hit these you should place a {{translate}} tag on them so someone who knows the language can handle it. Sometimes it does meet one of the CSD, but not because the page isn't in English. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, thanks for the info. It'll be another thing to bear in mind when doing page patrol. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 14:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subst

Quick question: do I need to use subst when proposing a speedy deletion, or just the template itself? -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't subst them; you shouldn't need to (if you need to change the display of the template, it's probably not a CSD candidate!), it's easier to clean up if the article is kept, and it's easier for you to type. Happy‑melon 17:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)